Journals / Türk Psikoloji Yazıları / 2015 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 36

Kişilerarası Süreç Grupları: Etkinliği, Evreleri, Etik Kaideleri ve Türkiye Kültürüne Uygunluğu

Pages
73–83
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The purpose of the present article is to introduce the concept of interpersonal process groups, review the literature regarding its effectiveness, investigate the ethical concerns regarding groups, present stages of group development, and finally, to discuss the place of interpersonal process groups in Turkish culture

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Group psychotherapy in general, interpersonal process groups in particular, are different from individual therapy which is conducted in group format (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005).
📊
Key Findings & Data:This process provides an advantage for group therapy that does not exist in individual therapy (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The purpose of the present article is to introduce the concept of interpersonal process groups, review the literature regarding its effectiveness, investigate the ethical concerns regarding groups, present stages of group development, and finally, to discuss the place of interpersonal process groups in Turkish culture
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2005 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Group psychotherapy in general, interpersonal process groups in particular, are different from individual therapy which is conducted in group format (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005). Stated differently, group psychotherapy is not a form of therapy during which the therapist conducts individual therapy with each group member. Interpersonal processes are the center of attention in group therapy, which is not necessarily the case in individual therapy. Interpersonal processes are experienced not only between group members and the therapists, but also between each group member. The process that occurs between group members and between group members and therapists is the main concern in group therapy. This process provides an advantage for group therapy that does not exist in individual therapy (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005). The purpose of the present article is to introduce the concept of interpersonal process groups, review the literature regarding its effectiveness, investigate the ethical concerns regarding groups, present stages of group development, and finally, to discuss the place of interpersonal process groups in Turkish culture

Özet

Grup terapisi, özellikle de kişilerarası süreç terapisi, bireysel terapinin grup halinde yapılanından farklıdır (Yalom ve Leszcz, 2005). Bir diğer deyişle, grup terapisi, terapistin sırasıyla her bir grup üyesine bireysel terapi uyguladığı bir terapi grubu değildir. Grup terapisinde, bireysel terapiden farklı olarak, kişilerarası süreç ön plana çıkar. Kişilerarası süreç sadece grup üyeleriyle terapist arasında yaşanmaz, grup üyeleri kendi aralarında da bir süreç yaşarlar. Grup üyelerinin hem terapistle, hem de birbirleriyle yaşadıkları kişilerarası süreç, grup terapisinin odak noktasıdır. Bu yönüyle grup terapisi, bireysel terapide elde edilemeyecek bir avantaj sağlar (Yalom ve Leszcz, 2005). Bu makalenin amacı, kişilerarası süreç gurubu kavramını tanıtmak; etkinliğine dair literatürü gözden geçirmek; grup terapisinde ön plana çıkan etik kaideleri ve grubun evrelerini incelemek; ve son olarak, kişilerarası süreç gruplarının Türkiye kültürüne uygunluğunu tartışmaktır

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇINARBAŞ, D. C. (2015). Kişilerarası Süreç Grupları: Etkinliği, Evreleri, Etik Kaideleri ve Türkiye Kültürüne Uygunluğu. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 36, 73–83. https://ajindex.com/articles/125989

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Association for Specialists in Group Work (ASGW). (1998). ASGW best practice guide-lines. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 23, 237-244.
  2. Bednar, R. L. ve Kaul, T. J. (1994). Experiential group research: Can the canon fire? A. E. Bergin ve S. L. Garfield, (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4. baskı) içinde (631-663).
  3. New York, NY: Wiley. Brown, N. W. (2009). Becoming a group leader. New Jersey: Pearson. Burlingame, G. M., MacKenzie, K. R. ve Strauss, B. (2004). Evidence based small group treatments. M. Lambert, A. E. Bergin ve S. L. Garfield, (Ed.), Handbook of psycho- therapy and behavior change (5. baskı) içinde (647-696).
  4. New York, NY: Wiley. Butler, L. (2003). Friendship groups: Make a friend and be a friend. D. Capuzzi, (Ed.), Approaches to group work: A handbook for practitioners içinde (28-35). New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. Corey, G. (2000). Theory and practice of group counseling. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Corey, M. S., Corey, G. ve Corey, C. (2010). Groups: Process and practice (8. baskı). CA: Brooks/Cole. Coşkun, B. ve Çakmak, D. (2005). Alkol ve madde bağım- lılarının grup psikoterapisinde psikodramanın kullanıl- ması. Bağımlılık Dergisi, 6, 103-110.
  5. Echeburşa, E., Sarasua, B. ve Zubizarreta, I. (2014). Individual versus individual and group therapy regarding a cogni- tive-behavioral treatment for battered women in a com- munity setting. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1783-1801.
  6. Erford, B. T. (2011). Group work: Process and applications. New Jersey: Pearson. Gladding, S. T. (2008). Groups: A counseling specialty (5. baskı). New Jersey: Pearson. Greenberg, K. R. (2003). Group counseling in K-12 schools: A handbook for school counselors. New York: Pearson Education. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International dif- ferences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill. Hogg, J. A. ve Deffenbacher, J. L. (1988). A comparison of cog- nitive and interpersonal-process group therapies in the treatment of depression among college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 304-310.
  7. Holcomb-McCoy, C. ve Moore-Thomas, C. (2011). Multicul- tural Issues in Group Work. B. T. Erford, (Ed.), Group work: Process and applications içinde (39-51). New Jer- sey: Pearson. Marmarosh, C., Holtz, A. ve Schottenbauer, M. (2005). Group cohesiveness, group-derived collective self-esteem, group-derived hope, and